Susan Secordâ€™s guest commentary about the relationship between extreme weather events and climate change is quite interesting. It seems that climate change now causes a greater intensity in such weather events as flooding, wild fires, hurricanes, droughts, etc. Rest assured, these events have occurred in the past and will continue in the future. The intensity of these natural disasters, as always, will vary from year to year.

I agree that we need to do everything we can to slow down man-caused pollution. Fossil fuels themselves most likely play a part in the warming effect of the planet, but they do not necessarily increase the intensity of natural climate events. Secordâ€™s proposed solution of a carbon tax is not the answer. It is being tried in several countries in Europe and does not seem to be working.

Nobody wants to be the victim of any natural disaster, but even if all carbon emissions were eliminated tomorrow, I am pretty certain all of these natural weather events would still happen.

Larry Dorner, Aurora

This letter was published in the Jan. 1 edition.

Susan Secordâ€™s guest commentary is a bunch of rehashed, discredited beliefs about climate change. She paints a dark picture in many misleading ways. Of course Coloradoâ€™s recent flood damages will cost more than $1 billion to repair, but thatâ€™s because todayâ€™s costs are so much higher than they were in the past, not because of greater damage.

Secord repeats the discredited notion that 99 â€śpercent of our climate scientists say that climate change is primarily caused by burning fossil fuels â€¦ .â€ť Is she really ready to ignore the vast emissions of volcanoes, the tremendous energy in solar flares that affect the entire solar system, and the impacts of methane gas?

Her answer is to enforce a national carbon tax on all of us. Just what we need â€” another tax! Save your money and buy another parka. Thereâ€™s been no increase in global average temperatures for the past 10 years, and many believe the future may be colder. Put your faith in data, not Secordâ€™s beliefs.

Paul Chamberlin, Littleton

This letter was published in the Jan. 1 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

My, my Paul Chamberlin is having a hootenanny here. i’m going to get some cheap points while he’s at it:

the vast emissions of volcanoes, the tremendous energy in solar flares that affect the entire solar system, and the impacts of methane gas [WTH? -D] ?

Save your money and buy another parka. Thereâ€™s been no increase in global average temperatures for the past 10 [sic] years**, and many believe the future may be colder. Put your faith in data, not Secordâ€™s beliefs.

o There is no consensus [25 points]
o Natural sources of CO2 are too big for human sources to matter [10 points]
o Sun actually influences climate [15 points]
o Global warming stopped in 1998, or other such cherry-picking of small time intervals (add 5 points for each time a single date with an anomalous event is used as the start date for when global warming stopped) [15 points] / Cooled since (date x) [20 points]
o Claim or set of claims which are contradictory or logically inconsistent [10 points]
o Scientists intent on enacting a global carbon tax [2 points]
o Cooling scare in the 1970s [10 points]
o Robed priests of science [10 points]
www(d0t)facebook(d0t)com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

That’s a sweet point haul. Thanks Paul!

Best,

D

** How come the usual suspects can’t get the lie right? do they do it for our amusement?

Dave52

We could start a bingo game -

lwr

Except Dano cheats. He continuously changes the rules so he will win. It’s like playing with a three year old, except less mentally stimulating.

Dano2

Thank you, Little Man of Many Screen Names. No one could tell you were making it up, based on your track record.

Best,

D

guest

DTJ reminds us all that facts do get in the way of leftist grand theories so they easily chuck them if necessary. AGW is a great example.

Sciencefirst9

The first study to integrate all prior scientific research in order to project approximately when climate change will produce permanent catastrophic consequences has been accepted and will soon be published in the scientific journal Nature, and it finds that things will start going haywire in the tropics at around the year 2020, and in our part of the world at around 2047.

Nature shares with Science and PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) the distinction of being tied as the world’s three most prestigious scientific journals, and an article is not published in these journals unless it has undergone extremely rigorous scientific peer-revue; so, climate-change deniers will have no professional credibility in attacking this study, as the Koch brothers and their friends can reasonably be expected to do, since they profit so much from what causes global warming – the burning of carbon-based fuels.

According to this study, the tropics, which are the near-equatorial region of this planet that’s almost 100% impoverished, and that has thus contributed virtually nothing to global warming, will begin the period of permanent catastrophe starting in approximately 2020; but the (cooler) moderate-latitude countries, such as in North America and Europe, will begin this catastrophic period in or around 2047.

This isn’t to say that things won’t continue to get worse after then; it’s only to say that this is, as the article will be titled, “The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability.”

This landmark article was co-authored by a team of 14 climate-scientists. It says: “Unprecedented climates will occur earliest in the tropics and among low-income countries.” It explains that the reason for this is that the countries near the equator have far less variability in their weather than do the moderate-climate countries, and so the species that constitute the ecosystems there cannot tolerate temperatures outside their narrow range, which has existed within that narrow range for thousands of years. Consequently, species-extinctions will soar there much faster and earlier than here. The existing impoverished economies, within around 2,500 miles of the equator (where average per-capita incomes are less than 10% of the average in the moderate-latitude countries such as ours), will become unlivable.

Old_Enough

Global warming causes climate change. Kind of like HIV develops into AIDS. Think of what happens when you add heat to a pot of water. The system becomes more chaotic when heat is added. Al Gore doesn’t have anything to do with the processes that are going on now with global warming. Where he bought a house doesn’t affect it either. As an aside, I keep reading your name as “Raginhormone”.

RaginGnome

First off, thanks for the first coffee snort through the nose moment of the year. “Raginhormone”.Too funny.
I never said Al had anything to do with it. I meant to imply that he is making money traveling around in his private jet and gas guzzling SUV’s not worried at all about HIS carbon footprint.

Dano2

o Al Goreâ€™s private jet, or new house on the beach, electricity use, etc [20 points]

www(d0t)facebook(d0t)com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

Best,

D

Dano2

Why did we go from “global warming” to “climate change”. Because climate-scientists, much like street hookers give you what you pay for.

Actually it was Frank Luntz who recommended it in his 2002 memo. But why would Faux “News” tell you that? They prefer you look foolish in your pronouncements!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if you think Algore’s house is at 50 feet, you are just the gullible rube savvy investor I’ve been looking for in MY own real estate deal. PM me before its too late!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It would seem your comment about Fox News and Frank Luntz is proof that Fox is less biased than other, similar news channels.

eddie47d

200 species go extinct each and every day and has occurred for several years now. That number does include microbes and the smallest of insects yet few species are being discovered so the balance is not in the world’s favor. Although the USA has been a major polluter in past years China has surpassed us. Whether these changes are directly related to global warming can be debated but to say nothing is going on is being very naive for climate deniers.

Dano2

Another man fully in control of his geographical knowledge and false attribution of predictions sends points our way!

o A scientist said X, taken out of context and this negates/proves Y [5 points]
o Weather event somewhere disproves AGW [15 points]
o Glaciers are not retreating or some glacier is advancing somewhere [5 points]
o Anything is result of AGW, say â€śscientistsâ€ť [10 points]
www(d0t)facebook(d0t)com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

Best,

D

eddie47d

That ship is stuck in Antarctica not the Arctic. One third of the Arctic has melted and no Al Gore did not predict that all of that land mass would melt. He did make predictions about Greenland and IF all the ice in Greenland melted the sea level would raise 20 feet. Both Greenland and the Antarctica have calved larger than normal glaciers. If you remember the news the one that broke off in Greenland was larger than Manhattan and the same has happened in Antarctica. Both the North Pole and South Pole areas are huge so these occurrences can fluctuate greatly. The North Pole has lost much sea ice and Antarctica has actually gained ice in some areas and lost ice in others.

peterpi

Don’t confuse ‘em with the facts. It upsets them.

thor

“Them?”

eddie47d

There is change going on and there are always a few who will deny that and make a joke of it. There has been some exaggerations so that is worth refuting but that doesn’t mean it isn’t simply happening at a slower pace. Speaking of millions did you know that the Koch brothers paid the University of Texas 23 million to prove that climate change doesn’t exist 4 years ago? Unfortunately those scientists and researchers all came to the conclusion that it is happening. Why did the Koch’s do that? Because their company is the biggest polluter in the USA and they didn’t want any pollution linked to them through climate change and their ability to ignore regulations.

Justclimbit

What a great way to start off the new year…by equating climate scientists (no hyphen) to hookers. Classy.

Just to add to the others’ responses, the terms “climate change” and “global warming” are discrete. Global warming refers only to the warming of the climate system (atmosphere and ocean). Climate change refers to the larger picture of effects and impacts to the climate, which are often initiated by temperature change. The term “climate change” is not new. It was used by Gilbert Plass in 1956 and is the “CC” in IPCC, which was formed in the ’80s.

And, while it’s a bit difficult to get past the inanity of Al Gore’s house having anything to do with AGW, in the interest of an attempt at generic accuracy, I think that Mr. Gore’s house is located on the side of a mountain at about 525 feet above the ocean.

Dano2

My favorite indicator of hopeless rube is ‘algore’s house at sea level’. I’m pretty sure no other indicator works better than this.

I kinda like the comparison. But then I don’t have rose colored glasses when it comes to the climate issue.

Justclimbit

The comparison was vile and baseless.

thor

You never had any.

thor

Many comparisons liberals make on here are vile and baseless. But that doesn’t stop them. Tbone loves to use teabagger, but I’m about the only one who calls him out. Join the call I’ve made to be civil on here, or quit criticizing others. Your choice.

Justclimbit

You just endorsed a despicable statement equating climate scientists with hookers. Did you miss your own (duck) call?

thor

Describing what hookers do is despicable. Equating how scientist prostitute themselves by taking money for results,much like a hooker, is not despicable. But it is also not civil. I object to non-civil discourse, of which liberals are much better at, so I did not miss my own (duck) call.

Justclimbit

You should stop while you are behind.

thor

Just the kind of reply I expect from someone who is behind. Very much a “playground” reply.

guest

You are becoming more like your partner DTJ all the time.

guest

Yes, it is a real insult to hookers.

Pilgrim

Yes, the lucrative global warming scam. The scientists are conspiring and rolling in the dough at taxpayer expense. Outrageous! Actually hilarious and ignorant. Al Gore didn’t start the discussion. Scientists have been aware of climate change and global warming for decades. We were talking about this in college courses I took in the 80’s – before Al Gore got involved. It would probably help you understand the subject better if you weren’t so motivated by your dislike of liberals and perceived liberal causes.

thor

We were talking about this in the 70’s when a prominent magazine predicted global cooling. It would appear we aren’t as smart about global weather as we think we are. So, the real scam right now is going on by our government using global warming as a way to confiscate more of our money through taxes.

Well, that just proves it. A “prominent magazine” made a wrong prediction. Therefore, global warming isn’t happening. Do you ever read what you post and then think about it.

thor

I ask the question ” Do you ever read what you post and then think about it.” to many items posted on here. Especially things written by liberals when they respond to posts I’ve made on subjects I’m well versed in. I’m not well versed on climate change, but I do have my opinion. Opinion is what 99% of the posts on here are. I know that is true when I read your posts. As to your misreading of my post, I never said global warming isn’t happening,I implied it isn’t as sure a science as others think it is.

Pilgrim

Sorry, but that sounds like paranoia. Because unqualified right wing politicians, businessmen and talk show hosts declared climate science as “junk science” doesn’t actually make it so. Do you really believe there is a worldwide conspiracy among thousands of climate scientists?

thor

Not a world-wide conspiracy. Do you think geese meet in a bar somewhere and decide to fly in formation each year? No. They do what comes naturally. Same with climate change scientists. They didn’t get together and decide to all find the same results. but they all have the same predisposition toward climate change, so they just do what comes naturally.

Dano2

Any assertion with AGW modelsâ€ť or â€śAGW scientistsâ€ť as if this were a homogenous, aligned group somewhere [10 points]

www(d0t)facebook(d0t)com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

Best,

D

peterpi

Do you have to do this ad nauseam? We get your point already.

Dano2

We get your point already

And I’m getting my points already. You can’t afford to let ignorant pronouncements go by for free in this league.

Best,

D

RaginGnome

Much like a 3 year old needing attention he just spouts nonsense so people react to him. “Troll”
I hope you and yours have a great year.

Just because people point out how ridiculous your comments are and have a laff at them doesn’t mean you should have a sadz, poor baby!

Best,

D

Justclimbit

As one “not well versed on climate change”, why do you presume to know how climate science is conducted?

thor

Didn’t imply I know how it is conducted. But I am well versed in how people with similar training/convictions can come to similar results without consulting one another.

Justclimbit

But you made an allegation that you simply have no ability to support. Again, why do you feel so sure of something that you know nothing about?

Dano2

Again, why do you feel so sure of something that you know nothing about?

He was duped into believing something that appealed to his psychological preferences. That’s how the disinformers operate to peddle doubt.

Best,

D

thor

From the master of disinformation.

guest

2013 –not a good year for leftist.

No warming.
Record low hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires in the USA despite the left claiming things are getting worse.
A ship full of AGW believers trapped in the ice in the Antarctic as they attempted to demonstrate how the sea ice was disappearing.

Not to mention Obamacare, Obama’s lies, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, the NSA.

Dano2

Thank you for having nothing but dishonesty.

Exactly what everyone expects from the Little Man of Many Screen Names.

Best,

D

guest

Thank you for having nothing but calling people liars as your go to comment. Your consistency is noted.

Dano2

If you didn’t have a clear track record of dishonesty, your comment would be devastating. Instead, it is just…dishonest.

Best,

D

Tbone

Ben garazza! Drink!

Never mind it happened in 2012, patriot.

guest

Yes it did happen in 2012, but the congressional hearings happened in 2013. BTW it’s Benghazi.

Tbone

And it’s in, what, North Korea? Cuba? You geniuses ever figure that out?

thor

Just an observation, climbit, just an observation. (But a pretty accurate one.)

Justclimbit

But you fail to understand that your uninformed opinion isn’t magically transformed into fact and should not be presented as such. You state quite assuredly that climate scientists are really just prostitute geese and then double down on this nonsense with your estimation that your observations are “accurate”. This would all be quite amusing, but as someone who is involved in climate science, that nonsense is offensive.

Dano2

Ignorance: never compelling argumentation.

Best,

D

guest

And yet you continue to use it.

thor

More feigned anger. “prostitute geese..” Talk about desperate. If you can’t follow my geese analogy, just say so. But to say my analogy is anything but an analogy is a real head scratcher.

Justclimbit

While I suppose that one might in fact be desperate to find need to visit a prostitute goose, I can assure you that the offense that I take in your libelous mischaracterization of a noble profession is not feigned.

thor

Just an analogy,climbit, just an analogy

Justclimbit

The correct response would have been to apologize and retract.

Dano2

The correct response is to shut down any chance of someone reading the thread and receiving information.

Best,

D

thor

The correct response would be to read what i write so that you can give a correct response. You are convinced you are the best informed person on the subject. Good for you. But I’m not convinced, but I am opinionated. Since this is a place to give opinion, if you want more, go to a climate science blog. There,you can be as full of yourself as you want to be.

Justclimbit

Did you not write, “scientist prostitute themselves by taking money for results,much like a hooker”? That is what prompted my response. You should apologize and retract.

thor

You combined my geese analogy with the hooker comment and voila, we have prostitute geese. Then you have the nerve to ask for an apology? Not gonna happen until you show yourself to be as civil as you want me to be. If you couldn’t follow my geese analogy, just say so. Even scientists have trouble with simple analogies. And if the hooker comment hit too close to home, own up to it. If not, then you have no reason to be insulted. Lastly, I gave up long ago expecting an apology for things that people like Tbone have said to me.

guest

If he put the geese together with the hooker comment, doesn’t that make it a honker hooker?

Justclimbit

Or, in keeping with the holiday season, six geese a laying?

Justclimbit

So now you are implying that I am one of those “hooker scientists”. You should apologize and retract…again.

thor

You are looking with a microscope for a reason to be offended. I wrote that if the shoe fits, own up to it. If it doesn’t fit, move on. But I never implied nor stated out right that I thought you were a hooker scientist.

Justclimbit

Well…actually you did. You should apologize and retract…again…again. Look at me. I’m starting to write like Rob! Have a good evening.

thor

Only toohip writes like robt. And since I have nothing to apologize for…..
Have a good evening,also.

Dave52

Its kind of like heart surgeons, geneticists, physicists, or other specialized disciplines that require dozens of years of study to acquire an expertise. When it comes to discussing their discipline, your opinion is just as valid as theirs.

Justclimbit

But he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Climate contrarians stay free.

peterpi

Like you and your conservative pals?

thor

So,when I beat to death my points about health care, you object, then you continue to beat to death your “Conservatives are just as bad.”

guest

It seems the left is now trying to silence any contrary opinions. Not very scientific.

thor

Not surprising.

Guest

You girlz (you & thor) go to the bathroom together besides massaging each other’s posts??

Guest

Do you girlz (you & thor) go to the toilet together besides massaging each others posts??

guest

I’m guessing that since you posted this twice in a short time span, your short term memory is gone.

Guest

No, disqus was acting up as it does. But you didn’t answer the question…do you girlz “go together”??? hahaha

peterpi

You don’t understand about thor.
Liberals are always wrong, in thor’s worldview, therefore it is thor’s mission to denigrate them, mock them, and make fun of them at every opportunity, all the while sadly lamenting the the lack of Socratic debate.

Dano2

He’s just posting inane comments to spam the thread to make it unreadable due to the sheer volume of idiotic replies. It’s a tactic.

Best,

D

thor

LOL. Like you always post timeless comments.

thor

You contribute to the lack of Socratic debate, yet you criticize me. Welcome to the debate, pete.

peterpi

Um, the Arctic ice cap did make a small come back this year, but it is considerably reduced from 30 years ago.
The ship you’re referring to is in the Antarctic.
The other end of the globe.

thor

I think he knows by now.

guest

And 30 years is your standard for records? You do know the earth is 4.5 billion years old and for most of that time had no ice caps.

guest

A better question is why are those scientist down in Antarctica telling us that AGW is causing the sea ice to disappear even as their ship is trapped by ice (December is the start of summer in the Southern Hemisphere). I guess they and the other acolytes of AGW never learn.

Justclimbit

Scientist (sic) are saying nothing of the sort.

guest

Yes they are.

A statement from the Australasian Antarctic Expedition:

“We’re stuck in our own experiment. We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice. We followed Sir Douglas Mawson’s footsteps into Commonwealth Bay, and are now ourselves trapped by ice surrounding our ship.

Seaice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up. We have found this has changed the system on many levels. The increase in sea ice has freshened the seawater below, so much so that you can almost drink it. This change will have impacts on the deep ocean circulation.”

Translation: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Justclimbit

You might want to read your quote again. “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but HERE [my emphasis] ice is building up.” The local climate conditions in Antarctica are allowing for slight trend increases in sea ice. The anomalous growth of winter max sea ice in Antarctica (which almost completely melts away by the end of summer) is completely acknowledged and widely discussed in the climate science community. If I recall correctly, the evidence points to increased polar winds (tied to ozone loss), and increased precipitation in the Southern Ocean and continental ice melt causing salinity changes promoting increased (sea) ice growth.

You seem to struggle to understand much of what you read. Dyslexia perhaps?

guest

What in the world did the censor find wrong in my posting. More to the point which child on these boards reported it as inappropriate? How about simply manning up and saying what you don’t agree with.

Justclimbit

I can’t say what the “censor” found wrong in your posting, as I am not that person (if in fact it is a person). I did not report your comment as being inappropriate (at least I don’t think I did…I gave that up a while back because I couldn’t keep up). That being said, I find virtually all of your comments (those that I read) to be inappropriate. They almost always consist of personal attacks and are needlessly confrontational. And you know quite well from our years of exchanges that I never let an incorrect assertion stand without challenge…which is exactly why I’ve responded to so many of your comments.

Justclimbit

And, I rest my case.

Dano2

IF you were honest or smart, you’d realize that you just refuted yourself.

Honest and smart people would see that this person just said that due to AGW, these new conditions exist.

Your track record of dishonesty precedes you, however.

Best,

D

guest

My god, both of you are dense.

I said “why are those scientist down in Antarctica telling us that AGW is
causing the sea ice to disappear even as their ship is trapped by ice”

Climate said, “Those scientist (sic) are saying nothing of the sort.”

I gave him the quote which said, “Seaice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.”

So they aren’t saying that sea ice is disappearing even while their ship is trapped by ice? If you wonder why you aren’t believable it is because you can’t read a simple 26 word sentence and comprehend it.

Dano2

Since you are pretending to be so smart, your comments on Antarctic sea ice must be purposely dishonest.

I gave him the quote which said, “Seaice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.”

This means:

o AGW is causing the sea ice to build up, or

o despite the abundant evidence, the sea ice building up means there are no changes in that place so this must mean no globul warmin

As there are no denialist/contrarian empirical studies that show the changes in Antarctica are natural, and the scientists on the ship are mentioning and tracking changes, at this time your implication is baseless.

HTH

Best,

D

Dano2

Thank you for having no defense for your dishonest and unsupported assertions, and thus having to flap your little hands to distract away from them.

Best,

D

guest

I rest my case.

Justclimbit

We must be talking past each other here. Let me try one more time. It seems clear to me that the initial reference to sea ice loss caused by climate change was exclusive of the Antarctic. The author continues by noting that in the Antarctic (i.e. “here”) the sea ice is increasing. Subsequent references to salinity changes (specific to the Antarctic) reinforce the point that the author is essentially stating that Antarctic sea ice is bucking the global trend.

guest

The correct response would have been to apologize and retract what you initially said.

Justclimbit

Why?

guest

I guess you didn’t recognize it. It’s what you told Thor he should have done. Sauce for the goose.

Justclimbit

I always remember what I write. It’s just that your use of that bit made no sense in this context. Certainly you can distinguish between a case of providing a factual account of sea ice in Antarctica and reasserting that climate scientists are hookers. For what should I apologize?

guest

No, you simply said, “Scientist (sic) are saying nothing of the sort.”

Your expanded explanation was irrelevant to your calling me a liar when what I said was true.

As for the comment about them being hookers I disagreed with it because I thought it was demeaning to hookers.

Justclimbit

LOL. Have a great day.

Dano2

Weather event somewhere disproves AGW [15 points]

www(d0t)facebook(d0t)com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

Best,

D

guest

Listening to those voices again, DTJ?

zugzug

I believe the polar ice caps are melting, as are glaciers worldwide. coal burning power plants are 19th century technology and more of them are yet being built (especially in china). this “we’ll fix it later” philosophy must change. I don’t believe adding more taxes to already overtaxed u.s. citizens is necessarily the answer. in the 21st century new technologies are being developed for autos with battery power and hydrogen. I think hydrogen has the best chance of success once the “Hindenburg” paranoia is removed. hopefully the emerging technology of hydrogen will be able to be applied to electricity generation as well.

eddie47d

Thanks for being reasonable in the discussion for there are many things that can improve our environment and allow mankind to continue to evolve. Higher gas mileage on vehicles has helped and pot scrubbers on coal fired plants have helped. Two years ago Washington State closed down its last coal fired power plant and replaced them with environmentally friendly technology. There was no job loss in the energy field although workers did have to be retrained. Change for the better can be very positive and cost effective while our health is not compromised.

Dave52

China has realized that they’e poisoning themselves if they keep going at the rate they are. This past year in January, a furniture factory caught on fire and burned for three hours pouring smoke into the sky, and nobody noticed what with the smog. They’re moving pretty fast – planning on installing another 35 GW’s of solar in the next two years.

Dano2

Their internal combustion air pollution problem cost them 2.5% of GDP last year. Freedom!

Best,

D

thor

Where does the Hindenburg paranoia come from? I hope you aren’t implying that it comes solely from conservatives. George Bush pushed for hydrogen research while President and George Will recently wrote a column on how promising hydrogen technology is. Look left for any Hindenburg paranoia.

peterpi

Because no conservative would ever make paranoid assertions.
You’re keeping true to form, I see.

thor

And you are staying true to form by only writing that I am excluding conservatives while adding no information to show how liberals are promoting hydrogen.

ags4ever

where is there any paranoia in stating the fact that hydrogen gas has always been a dangerous, highly flammable substance at all temperatures above absolute zero? For such is scientific fact (in an atmosphere that contains at least 19% oxygen) Hydrogen will catch fire and burn, often explosively, at just about every temperature above -459 degrees fahrenheit. (Its boiling point is -434.6 degrees Fahrenheit.)

guest

Arctic has gotten smaller over the past 30 years but this past year showed a significant increase.

Antarctic has increased in size over the past 30 years.

The sky isn’t falling.

Justclimbit

In regard to polar sea ice comparisons, Arctic sea ice continues its long, significant downward trend…yearly blips notwithstanding. Antarctic sea ice (September maximum extent) has shown a slight trend increase due to region-specific factors. It’s important to note however, that Antarctic land ice is decreasing according to GRACE measurements.

But you are correct about the sky not falling. In fact, AGW has increased the effective equilibrium emission height and warming will cause the tropopause to move higher. The sky is rising. Of course, this also increases the infrared opacity of the atmosphere and enhances the “greenhouse” effect…causing more warming.

Justclimbit

Looks like your oft-used expression of “respect and admiration” was not well-received by the mods. Happy New Year.

guest

Has a number of meanings, but for the censors on these boards, it means I doubt it.

Justclimbit

Then wouldn’t that be a more appropriate way to to express your thoughts?

guest

No.

Sciencefirst9

watch Chasing Ice on streaming Netflix.

Justclimbit

Thanks for the heads up! I’ve been wanting to see that. My wife and I have a Netflix account but usually only end up watching the original Star Trek episodes

Dano2

but this past year showed a significant increase.

Not at this time it has not.

Best,

D

Sciencefirst9

The idea that ice in the Anarctic is increasing is a misconception fostered by non-scientists ( fossil fuel corporations). An article in The Daily Beast on Dec13, 2013 reports that the professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University estimates that the Arctic will be ice free by 2015. The article cites numerous other prominent climate scientists who agree and other data showing global warming accelerating world wide.

End of the Arctic. – Ocean Could be Ice Free -Thedailybeast.com Dec.13.

In a related article, global warming is reported to be increasing much go faster than previously thought possible. Scientists have new data showing why. In a paper just published online today in Nature, one of the world’s top peer-reviewed scientific journals, scientists report that the tropics are projected to be ” unlivable” with mass extinctions occurring and by 2045 it will be our turn. By 2100 the average global temperature is estimated to be 4C, and most species cannot survive that, including humans. The sky is falling.

Of course, these projects are based on the assumption that there will not be a sudden and drastic drop in carbon emissions and with people like you spreading misinformation about climate change on public forums, no doubt there will be no hope for any drop in emissions. Keep up the good work.

ags4ever

daily beast–american communist party rag.

eddie47d

That really offered a heck of a lot to the conversation. The Daily Beast is pro environment and finding better methods to keep the world healthier. Communist countries like China and Russia were the worst of the worst in environmental disasters, (still are) Totally opposite of what you are suggesting about the Daily Beast. I think we could say “polar” opposites.

ags4ever

it is still an american communist party rag.

Dano2

o Glaciers are not retreating or some glacier is advancing somewhere [5 points]

www(d0t)facebook(d0t)com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

Best,

D

peterpi

Yaawwwn

guest

And temperatures haven’t increased in the past 17 years.

Dano2

Thank you for the dishonest assertion, for the 149th time.

Dishonesty is the best they can do!

Global warming stopped in 1998, or other such cherry-picking of small time intervals (add 5 points for each time a single date with an anomalous event is used as the start date for when global warming stopped) [15 points]
www(d0t)facebook(d0t)com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

Best,

D

eddie47d

In the last 15 years all glaciers in the world except one has had major shrinkage. That one glacier is in the Hindu Kush region of Pakistan. Some glaciers have completely disappeared and glaciers are FRESH WATER that all humans depend on. The glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro lost 97% of its water capacity in the last 10 years from extreme weather changes. That devastated an already drought prone region of Africa. Some glaciers have regained some of its lost ice but at a much slower pace than normal. Mount Kilimanjaro is not one of those fortunate ones.

toohip

“it’s merely God’s will, just pray it away!” (right, Robt!)

thor

I thought you were robt’s alter ego?

eddie47d

Is this your day for cheap shots or are we boring you with facts?

Dave52

Once again the renown Average American Citizens’ knowledge of international news shines through. There are a staggering number of similar, massive flooding events going on all around the world, destroying hundreds of billions of infrastructure, the incidence is clearly increasing.

Anyway, just sticking to the US, the past decade of unprecedented flooding – massive storms, hurricanes – has the Federal Flood Insurance 24 billion in debt. They tried to update their maps, figure out what unsubsidized premiums would cost, and the howls went up.

So, of course, the idea is to now pretend that there isn’t massive, bankrupting flooding going on, sea levels aren’t rising, all those 500 yr floods? What 500 year floods? Go ahead and build by the river, the tax payer will bail ya out.

The one good point you made was the one about building by the river. When I lived in MN,I wondered about those in Fargo who were flooded year after year when the Red River rose due to all the snow melting.

andyandy

Gosh, what a terrific newspaper.

How fortunate for the drooling goobers of the world to have the Post to offer tacit validation to their ignorant gooberness.

primafacie

As compelling a debating tactic as is childish name-calling, you don’t make a very convincing case for your position. Whatever that might be.

andyandy

I make no distinction between greenhouse effect deniers and flat-earthers.

Both contribute to our role as laughing stock for the rest of the world, and are an embarrassment, as is the Denver Post.

The difference is that flat-earthers are harmless goobers. Greenhouse effect deniers are not.

Goober is as goober does. And journalism is as journalism does.

ags4ever

Greenhouse effect deniers have the science to back their opihions up. Those who say that mankind causes global warming have no such facts.

eddie47d

Totally not true and seeing is believing if you observe what is going on.

guest

You mean like 17 years without any statistically significant warming?

Dano2

o Global warming stopped in 1998, or other such cherry-picking of small time intervals (add 5 points for each time a single date with an anomalous event is used as the start date for when global warming stopped) [15 points]

facebook(d0t)com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

Best,

D

Justclimbit

I’d be interested to hear about this science that refutes the “greenhouse” effect.

ags4ever

Historical evidence that shows that the earth went through a warming period from 800-1400 AD, when the population of the earth was less than 500 million persons. When the Viking explorers reached the island continent of Greenland, there was no ice cap on that island. And Danish settlers were able to settle there and live there for several centuries, until the weather got cold again (aabout the time of the Black Plague — bubonic plague–that reduced the population of Elurope by more than one third. This was long before the advent of the Industrial Revolution that heralded a massive increase in burning of fossil fuels, which the ignorant claim causes “global warming”.

A huge volcanic explosion in What some call the “Dutch East Indies on an island named Tamboro in 1815, about the middle of the Industrial Revolution in Europe, caused several years of lower than normal temperatures, including a “year without a summer”.in 1816. THe same thing happened after Krakatoa exploded in 1881. The winters of 1882, 1883, and 1884 were especially severe due to the dust in the atmosphere from Krakatoa.

The fact that at least two major volcanos have been erupting almost daily (Pinatubo in the Philippines and the one on the big island of Hawaii) since the 1980s has resulted in a series of lower temperatures since then.

andyandy

I think the greater scientific community have heard of volcanoes.

If, however, you have any new data to contribute to the discussion, I’m sure a little disciplined peer review will confirm or dis-confirm its relevance.

Justclimbit

All of that is very interesting. But it has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. I’d still be interested to hear about that science that refutes the “greenhouse” effect.

ags4ever

What “greenhouse” effect? One that can be over-ridden by one single explosion of a volcano?

There isn’t any support for any claim that mankind’s activities cause global warming, because we are not experiencing any such warming. In fact the consensus is that we are currently in a cooling cycle that has lasted about three years.

Justclimbit

So not only have you nothing to support your refutation of the “greenhouse” effect, you appear not to know what the “greenhouse” effect is. I encourage you to engage in a bit of cursory exploration of the subject. Cheers.

Sciencefirst9

over 97% of climate scientists agree with AGW according to the National Academy of Sciences, and 100% of the world’s top climate scientists, the ones who get their papers piblished in Science and Nature, agree because there is a mountain of evidence to support it in the peer-eviewed scientific literature. Where is the evidence for your opinion?

guest

“I make no distinction between greenhouse effect deniers and flat-earthers.”

“The difference is that flat-earthers are harmless goobers. Greenhouse effect deniers are not.”

You appear to have changed your mind one sentence later.

andyandy

Still goobers, just not harmless.

Of course you knew what I meant.

You haven’t changed a bit, Goose. Do you still want to bet your money that Obama will lose?

Sciencefirst9

The journal Nature, one of the top three peer-reviewed science journals in the world, publisted a paper online yesterday showing that climate change is occurring faster than expected. By 2020 the tropics, projections show, the tropics will become ” unlivable.” Our region will be effected by 2045. Unkess there is a sudden and dramatic cessation of fossil fuel emissions, the global temperature is expected to reach 4C by 2100. This is the temperature which is life-threatening to most species, including humans. Secretary of State John Kerry called this report ” an alarm bell.” I’d call it the smoking gun for climate change skeptics.

Planet Likely to Warm by 4 C, Scientists Warn. Theguardian.com

johnrpack

While global warming is a reality, there’s a few details environmentalists may want to keep in mind:

1) I’ll be running my furnace during the winter even when Florida is under water.
2) I’ll be driving to work in my car in order to pay to keep my furnace running.
3) If they want to reduce the impact of the above, they’ll need invention — not law. Why? Because I’ll be voting for politicians that understand my needs, but I buy LEDs.
4) The world was a much warmer place when Greenland was named. Greenland wouldn’t mind if it continued warming until their land was green again.
5) The environment is won by winning hearts and minds — not by imposing through law. I recycle because it’s the right thing to do and because it’s been made easy — not because congress makes me.
6) The environmentalists should pick the fights that matter rather than turning themselves into nattering nabobs of negativity by futily trying to prevent all environmental changes. For example, stop wasting time on the prebble mouse. No mouse worthy of the name has difficulty living around humans — or expanding its range.
7) You should also stop making poaching more profitable (the same way our nation has made selling drugs so attractive).

Sciencefirst9

There is really only one thing we need to do: put a realistic price on carbon.
It’s carbon pollution that causes Climate change disasters and will bring many more and much worse ones. We generally make polluters pay, but in the case of fossil fuels, the taxpayers pay for the damage the coal, oil, and gas corporations cause.Suoerstorm Sandy cost over $70 billion and the average family now pays $400 in disaster relief for climate change. To add insult toI injury, we give the fossil fuel industry massive amounts of taxpayer subsidies each year which dwarf anything solar and wind get.The fossil fuel industry is well-established and highly profitable and does not need any subsidies. How is it possible that Exxon-Mobil canoay no taxes? Brcause they own many politicans and fund their campaigns. These politicans intern, profess to be climate-change deniers and vote against anything that would be against the interests of fossil fuels.

We need to transition to renewable energy while there. Is still time. LED lights and the rest of it won’t do the job. If you left the job of transitioning to the general public, climate change would be in a run-away stage before anything would be done. Most people have no clue how bad climate change will become soon because the media has failed to convey the message scientists are trying to convey to us. Unfortunately,they a re terrible whenit comes to communicating
With the general public, so what they do tell us is picked upby the right-wing
iIt’s a misconception that Northern lands will prosper as climate change occurs. Those areas are permafrost and will not be useful for agriculture. All we will get whenthey warm is massive amounts of methane,a greenhouse has that is much more powerful than CO2. By the time Greenlandis green, the global economy will have collapsed and civilization with it.

European nations have moved toward solar and wind successfully.Denmark got 100% of its power from wind this year. Iowa got nearly 30% and is moving towards 40%. I live in PA and get 100% of my elecricity from wind and drive a electric car, so it’s do-able,but not without the government mandates that made it possible in the first place. By the end of the decade, solar and wind will be cheaper than fossil fuels, but only because the government helped the, scale up to become profitable and allowed them to innovate and improve as they progressed.This industry has become like the computer chip industry:every year their products get drop in price while becoming better.

Dano2

Erroneous conflations of evidence, policy, and activism aside:

o Greenland got its name because it was â€śGreenâ€ť and life flourished in Medieval times, including grapes in England [10 points]

o Accepting AGW means that you need to stop breathing, live in a cave, sell car, etc [25 points]

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...